memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Ten Forward/Archive 2005
Character relationships I think we should make pages for the relationships between major characters. We currently write the information out twice and it seems kind of pointless. If you take the relationship between two major characters, say Jean-Luc Picard and Beverly Crusher as an example, there is easily enough to be said to justify an article. By duplicating all info and putting it all down on each character page we make character pages unnecessarily long and waste space. Jaf 21:56, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf :On the major charcter pages, we have sections for personal relations. Tobyk777 23:17, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) Yes, that's kind of my point. Jaf 23:20, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf ::hi, i read this and wondered how you plan to make relationship pages. is there a romance page per show, or just Beverly_Crusher_and_Jean-Luc_Picard? sounds a bit overly complex, i think every coin has two sides so maybe tell the same story from a different PoV? Makon 03:01, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) In response to your question about PoV: Because this is a television show using characters as oppose to "real" people, we are not caught in a world of subjectivity in terms of "How is the captain looking at this?" unless clearly demonstrated that by the show itself. An episode is filmed and therefore has only one point of view and in that sense it is objective and can be recorded as such. Jaf 03:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf I don't mean for it to be limited to romantic relationships. I see this as a natural move for this wiki. It's similar to the process we seem to be undergoing of creating pages for species' history, philosophy, religion, wedding or sexuality, instead of keeping it all on the main species page. Except with character relationships there is even more reason to break them from the parent pages (ie avoiding repetition). Jaf 18:10, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf :::Good idea, but as the history pages it should be limited to cases where really extensive information is available, e.g. William T. Riker (this page is just too long) and Deanna Troi (somebody just copyedited it to Deanna from Riker). Then we can substitute these sections with a link to William Riker & Deanna Troi (arranged alphabetically for the surname, R ... T). --Memory 21:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::I absolutely don't like this idea. I think that any relationship should (and can, regarding the scope and POV) only be described in the context of the person having that relationship with someone else. It is not comparable to "SPECIES history", which is a well-defined topic of its own, while "X's relationship with Y" seems to be rather unencyclopedic. I also don't see the problem of content duplication here - as stated above, there's always the possibility to focus on the person having the relationship on each of the characters' pages. -- Cid Highwind 22:50, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::Ok, but e.g. the duplication on William T. Riker and Deanna Troi is just pointless, especially regarding the fact that the Riker page is daunting long. --Memory 23:14, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::Why not just incorporate the information into the article instead of pointlessly separating it? - 200.81.94.59 23:16, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::Besides which, isn't it also pointless for the Federation to have secondary back-ups, as pointed out by a Cardassian in some episode? - 200.81.94.59 23:17, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::Maybe we could separate big pages, like Riker and Worf, into section pages. Like on some big Wikipedia pages (e.g. George W. Bush) you could have a short summary of Riker's relationships with other characters and a see Relationships of William Riker for main article or something similar. It wouldn't stop "duplication" but it would shorten some of the big pages so that some people's browsers can read the page easier.--Tim Thomason 01:42, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT) moved from Talk:Jean-Luc Picard-William T. Riker relationship (deleted) I think, in creating this page, the talk page should be utilized in either justifying, explaining or redirecting the reader to the discussion of why this page was created separately from the Jean-Luc Picard and William T. Riker pages, rather than creating a uniquely named (and somewhat nonconformed in style) page. --Alan del Beccio 16:53, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) :The answer to that would be quite logical. The following warning sign appeared to me when editting the Jean-Luc Picard page. ::WARNING: This page is 52 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. :And that's exactly what I did. I figured that the sections related to Picard's life and career were important to stay on the page itself, and thus I decided to create seperate pages for his relationship with others in case enough information is available to justify a seperate page. I currently created this page and Data-Jean Luc Picard relationship, and I think that another page about Picard's relationship with Beverly Crusher should be made too. Ottens 17:22, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::Just because editing the whole page is large, doesn't mean users can't edit smaller sections as the warning suggests, not entirely separate pages. I dont' think we need these pages. Logan 5 17:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) :The concern about large pages isn't for those who edit it, but for those who want to read the page, but have to wait for long periods for it to load on slow connections. Ottens 18:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::The warning you cite as justification specifically says: "some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb", nothing about accessing a page. Logan 5 18:02, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) :You're right. Well, adding to that, some may have troubles viewing the page on slow connection also. ;) Either way, let's move the discussion to the related section in Memory Alpha: Ten Forward. Ottens 18:10, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) ---- So Ottens started with Data & Jean-Luc Picard and I "copycreated" William Riker & Deanna Troi to show the two possible variants, a complete outsourcing like you can see it on William T. Riker and Deanna Troi, or the "Thomason-Variant" on Data. --Memory 17:15, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) :Considering I iniated this (I felt someone had to make the first step), I logically support the creation of such pages. Currently, these are the pages we're talking about: :* Data & Jean-Luc Picard; :* Beverly Crusher & Jean-Luc Picard; :* Jean-Luc Picard & William T. Riker; :* William T. Riker & Deanna Troi. :I was cleaning up the Jean-Luc Picard page, and because of its immense length, I felt it was appropriate to move particular content to other pages, in order to decrease the size of the character page. Logically, I decided to move information regarding the character's relation with other characters, reasoning the best place for information regarding to the character itself would be on his or her own page. :Although the naming of pages like this could be debated, I feel it's only the logical next step in the always expanding nature of Memory Alpha. If all information related to one subject, especially in the case of characters, were to be put on the subject's page, several pages would become enormous. We already apply similar practices on pages like Federation, with, for example, a link to a seperate Federation history page. Such breaking up of pages should, of course, only be done in case a considerable ammount of information is available on the newly to-be-created page, which is the case with Federation history and which is also the case with the four pages listed above. Ottens 18:08, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) I really don't think this a good idea. Also, shouldn't there be some form of consenus before making such drastic changes? --From Andoria with Love 20:38, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) :To clarify, if we did this, there would be far too many relationship pages. You would have to create articles for Kirk & Spock, Kirk & McCoy, Kirk, Spock & McCoy, Geordi & Data, Tom Paris & B'Elanna Torres, Archer & Trip, Archer & T'Pol, Mayweather & Sato, Sisko & Kira, Kira & Odo, Bashir & O'Brien, and oh, so many more, and that would just be ridiculous. PLUS, nobody's going to be looking for an article about a specific relationship -- they'll be looking for an article about a character that can tell them about that relationship. --From Andoria with Love 20:49, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) *I agree with Shran that this should not be pursued any further without community input. Someone indicated above that there are two POVs to every relationship, and that's exactly why I think this is a horrible idea. I don't know anything about TNG, but let's use DS9 as an example. *Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax should have entirely separate descriptions for their relationship - he was chasing her and meant well; she was annoyed but enjoyed the attention. Benjamin Sisko and Dax - he was glad to see her but a little unsure at first; she tried to remain friends while differentiating herself from Curzon Dax. Nog and Sisko - Nog was eager to get into Starfleet because he didn't want to end up like his father; Sisko thought Nog wanted to apply as part of a scheme. Jake Sisko and Nog - perhaps one of the best candidates for something like this, but they still had different takes on their developing friendship, coming from Human and Ferengi backgrounds. Then of course we have Odo and Kira Nerys, where she was basically clueless for four years while he tried to be a good friend, listening to her talk about Bareil and later Shakaar. *My point is that, unless character development was completely bland to nonexistant on other series, consolidating a relationship into one page shouldn't work in that the only way to do this accurately would be to have a page for Beverley and Picard, another for Picard and Beverley, etc. I strongly prefer getting a holistic view where I can browse the page and see information about the person without clicking 500 times. Even our Riker page, the longest on MA, isn't "too long" - that's why Wikis are equipped with a table of contents. :) --Schrei 21:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::That's no point, we're writing articles not from the perspective of one person, so both versions of a relationship section e.g. at Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax have to be identical and written from a NPOV. (The TOC doesn't solves the problem for modem users) --Memory 21:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::NPOV, when talking about one person's relationship with another, still allows for variety. I was mostly addressing the part about Riker & Deanna's relationship information being duplicated. I'm not sure how slow it goes on dial-up though. --Schrei 21:37, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) *Guys! This is TV, the only point of view is from the viewer. The only subjectivity comes in when we apply ours and MA is not about fan interpretation. And it is not that hard to say "Bob chased Amy, Amy didn't like it'. Relationship pages are the best solution to information duplication and unnecessarily long character articles. Jaf 23:35, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf **I admit I was on a tangent earlier, and I made some unnecessary points. However, the fact that this idea solves absolutely nothing still stands. It adds to the time one has to spend (loading extra pages makes it easier on dial-up users?) to view the same amount of information. It's not worth arguing the POV thing, since like you said, it's TV (I'm right :P). --Schrei 00:18, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) :The advantages of doing this: :* Articles of main characters will be less long; :* There won't be the same information on two pages. :Now what are the disadvantages? Ottens 13:01, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::::If I want to learn more about, for example, Riker's relationship to different people, I can now do so on one page. After moving all the information elsewhere, I'd have to read several pages ("... and Picard", "... and Troi", "... and Guinan", ...) where, on each page, I might even read more than I'm really interested in, because relationships often are "asymmetric" (trust me, I know ;) ). -- Cid Highwind 13:08, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) :Ok, so if I understand correctly the disadvantages are: :* Too much clicking; :* Both characters POV will be on one page. :Jaf 13:12, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf ::Yes, the pages are quite annoying. I am something of a mergest by Wikipedia terms, I still stand by my original statement that these pages complicate a simple process. Whilst I don't quite understand the "They need separate pages" argument, two PoV's are still preferable, for shaving off maybe five kilobytes of text and one or two pictures at most doesn't improve the load time enough to justify the fragmentation in my eyes. Makon 15:00, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I thought that having to click on links to read more about a certain subject was the whole point of a wiki? Anyhow, in regard to the different POVs. If a relationship is indeed written on one page from that character's point of view, and written from another character's POV on his or her page, then sure, they should be seperated. In the cases we're talking about, however, the exact same text appears on both pages. I think that's a little ridiculous... Ottens 22:19, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) * It's the whole point of wiki when you are reading an article about Picard and you want to click a link to learn more about his artificial heart, not more about Picard on another page about Picard. With regards to these relationship pages, they should be written from the perspective of Picard OR Riker and therefore should not contain the same content as the creation of these pages forces upon the reader. --Alan del Beccio 22:35, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) : I quite frankly don't care very much whether the information is on the character's page or on a seperate page. It just seems somewhat awkward to me to have the same info on two pages. And while perhaps information should be written from two perspectives, they aren't. Ottens 09:09, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) The Trouble with Templates Between the accidental duplication of the episode infobox/sidebar and the recent change to the DS9 nav template, I think we need some place to discuss templates similar to the suggested categories section. I'm as guilty as anyone for doing this -I created and applied the nav template without any outside input, and look what happened when someone else did the same. --Schrei 19:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :For the act of fixing these templates i strongly suggest you enlist the help of a bot rather than adding the template to new episodes, and try to clean up the ones you are in the middle of fixing. :Manually going through all of them could have been avoided, so lets not start any more changes until we've * fixed the links in all the current uses of episode browser templates * add them via a bot, to provide some lag time, so users can size up the nav templates to be added, find any potential problems, and finally, cut the edit load down by having the bot do the massive numbers of edits necessary. :I realize everyone is willing to pitch in to get it done, but with so many people trying to make a mark on the template scene, its getting a little confusing, and this is where the mistakes are coming from. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:52, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::*I am trying to help clean this up, and if anyone would like to do so as well, i believe everything before the DS9 Season 4 episode Homefront is done. and yes, in the future let's use bots (robots? i'm not familiar with the term, but it sounds good.) Makon 00:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I Strongly agree that we need a Template suggestion page. These are popping up everywhere, and any (even new) users are creating them, I'm not sure their legit. - AJHalliwell 23:36, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Ya... Btw, did all the episode pages get done? Coke 23:41, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Has anyone contacted Kobi and asked him if he could have Morn fix the templates? --From Andoria with Love 23:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** Can a Bot handle things like this? It's one thing to just tag something onto the end of the page, but dunno about sifting out the syntax. Coke 23:55, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) Plot types I personally think this is a great idea, but I wanna see what other people think first. User:Ged created it and put it on episode pages like Babel. So what do you guys think? --Schrei 01:05, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I like it. I've definitely gotten deja vous a few times while watching Trek. Coke 01:10, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Frankly it's a little too 'meta' for me. I think MA should be limited to discussing documented elements of Trek, not this type of dissection. Logan 5 01:27, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) ---- I was hoping to work my way through all of The Original Series episodes indicating the plot types, but this met with displeasure from User:AJHalliwell, who undid the changes. Two others have already voted against it. User:Coke has already expanded the Curable disease plot with episodes from other series, so the idea resonated with someone. Is there no way in which I can link to the plot types from episodes or do I have to wait until I complete all the TOS episodes before I could do that? Is the issue that I put in the table? Should I link from the summary section or another section instead? --Ged 02:02, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) :I dont' think it's any of those things, it's more that this type of article may be outside the scope of what MA is trying to do: namely to document on-screen and production related elements of the show, not just to take them apart in a fan-discussion sort of way. What you've put isn't accurate, just maybe not really what the community is after. But that's why Ten Forward is here, to discuss that. Logan 5 01:36, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) *We've had people do edits to many episode pages at once, only to find that later they had to be changed for one reason or another. Also, this has been suggested in category form already at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions. I know I'm not fond of this idea-- it seems too non-encyclopedia.- AJHalliwell 02:11, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) Sets/scenery I noticed that most scripts i've read have a list of different sets or scenery the scenes will take place in. Perhaps this list would be well adapted to episode articles. Not only could we list a complete roster of locations visited in an episode, we could use it to cross reference which sets were reused as other locations. For example, Encounter at Farpoint would list all the sets introduced for TNG, and the fact that the battle bridge was a reuse of the USS Enterprise bridge, main engineering was the movie era engineering set, etc. "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" would list engineering and the battle bridge being seen, but that this time around the battle bridge was a reuse of Data's laboratory. This colud also mean a list of each time the various "Planet Hell" sets or locations were reformatted or reused (Vasquez Rocks in TOS, the TNG rock stage, the DS9 cavern stage, VOY's eponymous Planet Hell, ENT's CGI locations, etc) This has great potential to expand MA, perhaps even by an index, category or reference table, or a separate article (or background section, if its an article that already exists, like battle bridge) for each set piece we've seen being reused. If we standardize a style for this note first, it should be easy to systematically add it to many articles or list the data somewhere. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:04, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *In the long term this could lead to articles about popular set and/or locations. Jaf 02:44, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf Centuries and Years A new anonymous user (24.118.54.76) has brought up an interesting issue over years and centuries. By the looks of it, we used to use the '2300-2399' (As an example) method of measuring a century (Thus that would be the 24th century). However, 24.118.54.76 brought up a fact that people rely on the method of measuring a century as so: '2301-2400'. So basically the question is, which one is correct for use in MA? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:02, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) :That's odd, since the later is, IIRC, correct. The 1st century was from the year 1 'till the year 100, 2nd century from 101 to 200, etc. So the 24th century would start in 2301 and end in the year 2400, hence naming it 24'th century. Ottens | SITE ✍ TALK | 10:33, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) Pirateopedia Today on MA, a strange logo has been in the corner of my screen. It appears to be a pirate (or rather a one eyed potato) with the word "PIRATEOPEDIA" under it. It links to the main page. Does anyone know what this is? Jaz 16:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) :I'm not seeing it, could it be some kind of wiki-virus? Also, as almost no one has edited a page in two hours (wow) is anyone else having trouble loading MA? Mine is loading really slow then screwing up, I figured it was just mine, but maybe not. - AJHalliwell 20:52, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::Mine is slow too, and this text appears blue. Images are not appearing, and links are not working. Something is seriously wrong.Jaz 21:45, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) :::Woah... This was so trippy, I thought either someone slipped me something or I was in a time travel episode. The Pirateopeda logo randomly started appearing instead of MA, and every time I hit submit to add a comment here, it'd just show a preview except my timestamp kept going off by a few minutes or hours. Then the most random stuff kept happening. Not to mention the recent changes claimed a change I'd submitted to Odo five minutes earlier had happened five hours ago. All I can say is, woah. --Schrei 21:28, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::The blue text is what happens if someone messes up his custom signature. I think Ottens did in the section directly above. As for the rest - Wikicities apparently has been "slashdotted" today. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) :::::At the risk of further exposing my non-Trekkieness, what's slashdotted mean? :P --Schrei 17:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) ::::That only exposes your general "non-Nerdieness"... ;) www.slashdot.com describes itself as "News for nerds", and a link on that page works like a Distributed Denial of Service attack for most sites. Today there's an article about the Uncyclopedia on the front page. -- Cid Highwind 17:16, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) I can see the "pirate-potato" too. Strange. --84.131.34.121 17:20, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) *Mine's got a radio-controlled car on it, with the words "Radio control wiki" on it. Does anyone have any idea how long this goes on for? I can't even sign in! 86.139.74.227 22:01, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) *We got hacked. BTW, where does the name-server for this site sit? And who controls it? Logan 5 22:29, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Checking to see if things are fixed yet. My I've let my life become to connected to MA. We were hacked? See, that sounds more probable to me than that slashing thing. Although I have yet to see the dinosaur-pirate-potato-wiki. - AJHalliwell 18:12, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) ::::Believe it or not, we were ''not hacked. :) You can still see the pirate logo on www.uncyclopedia.org, which is their logo for today... -- Cid Highwind 22:55, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Wait a second, what the hell is Uncyclopedia.org? I just went to it and it looks almost like a wikipedia virus. Tobyk777 14:59, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::Believed, just understand what hacking is better. Any idea when we'll be back up? Hm, I wonder if this'll get a foot note in the history of Memory alpha page, "The Talk-Like-a-Pirate Day Blackout." - AJHalliwell 19:38, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT) ::::::Things seem to be back in working order now. I hope... --From Andoria with Love 07:12, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::::Then again, maybe not. --From Andoria with Love 07:13, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Things are working sporatically for me, and the times of my edits are appear at random hours. Edits I made now appear edits I made several hours ago. Other than that my browser keeps timing out, I haven't experienced anything else ya'll have been talking about. --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::::::This is getting really weird. When I log in, I'm unable to upload anything or even edit a page. When I try to edit something, whenever I klick "save page", I only get to see the preview. When I want to upload something, I get all kinds of strange errors. Now, I'm not logged in, and I can edit posts, but can't upload new images. This is getting really frustrating! Well, at least now we know, what is causing this: http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Community_portal (scroll to the bottom). --Jörg --80.228.2.55 12:03, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT) Well I did not see any logo, but then again (yesterday) I could not even reach MA. Although reaching the DutchMA was no problem, I've got a DNS error back from the proxy server at Wikipedia(Cities?) so I think the problem was on their side. Today it the first time I can reach MA and read anything. -- Q 15:43, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) I see the logo still. The fact that it's "pirate" and the overall bad response, etc lead me to think the site had been high-jacked and we were being denied entry, a common hack move. Glad to know I was wrong. Logan 5 12:19, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT) :Also, there are still major bugs. After I hit Save it shows up as Preview only, and then about an hour later actually DOES save. Logan 5 12:19, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT) *Ahah! I'm finally back, after trying for a day! This is the first time it's let me sign on. 86.130.244.110 14:16, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT) ::Yeah, if this wasn't a hack, its simply the site running like it was reprogrammed by some kind of stupid person... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:58, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) Is it just me or does it put things in the recent changes in random order? It claims the images I uploaded over the past 5 minutes were at random times over the last hour. --Schrei 19:35, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC) Discounting Infomation from Canon Material I saw in a did you know on the main page a few weeks ago, "The prodcers themsleves discount the events of the Voyager episode becuase ofd how sceintificaly inacurate it is." (or at least something like that) On 's backround info section, it says the same thing. I researched this, and found that it is true, that both the writters, and producers of Voyager agree that the information is invalid to the Star Trek universe. So, does this mean that it is invalid on MA? (I'm not making a statment with this remark i'm asking a question) If we have info on MA which although comes from a canon source, but the makers of that source discount it as true, then is it cannon, not cannon, true, false, etc.? I was just wondering about that. Tobyk777 04:26, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) :...What? It comes from a canon source so it belongs here. Ben Sisqo 05:12, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::What the writers and producers of Trek interpret as canon is not the same as MA's canon policy. Two examples that are not considered canon by Paramount are The Animated Series and information from these computer screens - Image:Archer biographical.jpg and Image:Sato biographical.jpg, taken from . However, they are both featured on this site and are considered canon by MA. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 12:02, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::They are considered valid resources by MA -- which means we will use them here as information -- because they were featured onscreen. Many times, even entire episodes or movies will be, in the producer's mind, not relevant, and they will disregard events and information from a previous production in favor of a new interpretation. This is an example of what is referred to as a changed premise -- the producers originally use one story, but then ignore previous information to allow a different story later. :::For example - the Trill makeup. There was an original version, but they later decided to make it simpler, resulting in two very different types of Trill. Klingon blood was first seen bright purple, but was made much darker by later productions. :::Data was originally considered as a character of alien origin "found" by the Federation. Only the later revision of "Datalore", 16 episodes later, made him the product of a Federation scientist, because they ignored their original idea (although no references to "alien Data" ever made it onscreen, making this a pure piece of background information. (as an aside, this is why we have background information as a subsection -- to ensure that we separate what appeared onscreen from what didn't appear onscreen -- this way we can list all of these canon references but without having a visible contradiction -- and a note that it has never been explained why something is "inconsistant" or "disregarded" in that manner, from what the producers call "canon"). :::I've changed the title of this subsection -- its a lot people for people to know you are talking about canon if you write canon -- as cannon''s have little to do with this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:22, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) Andorian glass beads and other illegal items First, is it my imagination when I remember references to Andorian glass beads? I can't find any mention of them at all in MA but I'm sure I've heard the phrase somewhere, or something very similar. And while I'm at it: Is there any evidence to support the idea that some "illegal" items such as the beads, and Rigelian flame gems, etc are illegal not because of any specific property, but perhaps because the Federation has some rule allowing member planets to regulate commerce in products that are indigenous to only a single planet? Seems to make sense that common minerals and commodities would have a common market, but that rare or unique items such as the beads or Terran pearls would be controlled by the race that produces them and no other species could trade in them. Speculation at this point, but any reference, even slight, to some system like that (for instance, an Andorian trader selling the beads when others can't) would help expand the understanding of the Federation economy and the various goods mentioned. Logan 5 14:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Perhaps an article listing contraband items might go into more depth about this.. Catgory:Contraband perhaps? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:00, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *User:Oshah stated "''Maybe we should start a category: organised crime, passive movements, and groups explicitly labelled terrorists" in an edit of Terrorism, also Crimes, Punishments and Capital punishment are requested at Memory Alpha:Requested articles. I point this out because these things seem to be leaning in a similar direction and it might be helpful to keep them all together during such discussion. Jaf 02:37, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf * Actually they were Andarian glass beads. And I was thinking consumables/Category:Consumables for this, as well as Foods and beverages, currencies, silks, and any other item that has some sort of value. --Alan del Beccio 23:46, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) AD/BC vs CE/BC I've run across a few times when a date must be described in one of the above ways, so I have a question: Since they mean the same thing, should we use AD & BC or CE & BC to describe these certain dates? We should only use one set to be consistent. My vote is the secular and more politically-correct CE/BC. Whatever the choice, I think a policy should be reached. -[[User:Platypus222|'''Platypus Man]] | ''Talk'' 19:16, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) :It has -- -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:38, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::It doesn't do me any good to tell me that it has. What is it? -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 21:19, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::Sorry -- i accidentally cut off the last part of that note when i copied it into the edit summary -- the removed portion reads "our timeline uses CE/BC" -- i can't seem to find a talk page where i remember discussing it however -- someone must've deleted it -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:32, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I haven't seen anything regarding such a conversation. I'm curious what the basis was for the decision, as in "The Big Goodbye", when Picard was configuring the holodeck for his Dixon Hill program he specifically said 1941, stammered for a second and quickly added "AD" to it, as if to clarify which 1941. --Alan del Beccio 04:03, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) **And for that matter, the DOB of Flint's alter ego was referenced as "BC", iirc. --Alan del Beccio 04:16, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *What do CE and BC stand for? Makon 04:56, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** and ; but to save clicking the link it means, "Common Era" or "Current Era" or "Christian Era" and essentially has the same meaning as "AD". BC just adds the word "Before" before the "CE" aforementioned references, and means the same as BC. --Alan del Beccio 05:28, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***A couple years ago an IP user changed early history to BC/AE notation ( http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Early_history&diff=948&oldid=906 ), DarkHorizon reverted it with an explanation it was "scientific notation" -- it made sense to me to at the time, so i've been going by that reasoning since then. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ****Suits me, as long as no one throws a fit about the occasional use of AD/BC, if and when the use of AD/BC were used in a reference from an episode. --Alan del Beccio 23:41, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) **by the way, this has been supported by a couple other users -- the discussion no one could find is talk:early history. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk New language version of MA What do you guys think about the prospect of a Spanish MA? Before I say anything, don't get the wrong impression - this is just an idea, and I think AJHalliwell's the only person I've even mentioned it to. I'm curious if anyone here speaks the language and would be interested, assuming such an expansion is feasible. The thing is, I don't have the time or skill (my Spanish is mostly street slang) to hammer out the details, grow the Wiki, etc. I also don't know about the potential audience. But if someone else was interested or at least didn't mind a partner whose contributions would be mainly DS9 articles in need of copyediting, I'd be glad to help. And like I said, that's assuming MA is ready/able to expand. Any thoughts? --Schrei 02:19, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) : Has all the series been translated in spanish? Because I think in the case of my native language, they have not. What do you guys think of adding a Translation info to the series page? Maybe this way, we would know what language version would be nice to start. If its the case for spanish (or any other language), only adding a skeleton (with bots and the like) would be a enough to attract some spanish-english people that could translate articles all they want, I think. --Rcog 03:27, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::If only your native language was Spanish instead of French, we might make beautiful music (or at least articles) together. ;) But seriously, I think it's best to just leave things as they are with the links to other language versions of pages. Not sure if Trek has been released in Spanish either - I was just curious if anyone was interested. ::Oh, and it turns out that all it takes for MA to expand is for someone to fill out a Wikicities application (and of course translate the critical pages). I suppose I could start my own Spanish Wiki with cobbled-together barrio talk and then let it go dormant like 90% of Wikicities... --Schrei 04:20, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::I think if you track down spanish speakers here and look at editors in the spanish wikipedia who contributed to the Star Trek pages (if they exist) it would be a nice idea. However I would not like to see it go down like the Polish MA. As for translation: the Dutch MA is a good example that even undubbed Star Trek can have a good encyclopedia -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 07:20, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::I've seen the Spanish Wikipedia pages before, and there's little to nothing. The truth is that Trek is mostly nonexistant in Hispanic countries (or at least Mexico). There are probably Spanish-speaking Trek fans in the USA, but they'd just as soon use the English version. :) What happened to the Polish MA? Did it never start, or was the content erased? --Schrei 07:59, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)